Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, we do not plan to raise Papua in the United Nations Security Council. We respect Indonesia's territorial integrity and do not support Papuan independence. We believe that full implementation of existing special autonomy legislation is the best way to proceed towards a sustainable resolution to the internal differences and the long-term stability of Papua. The best way to resolve the complex issues in Papua is through promoting peaceful dialogue between Papuan groups and the Indonesian Government.
	My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he agree that the British Government's attitude in 1968-69, as now revealed under the 30-year rule through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office telegrams, could only be described as brutal realism? Commercial links with Indonesia were allowed to stifle totally the legitimate claims of the indigenous West Papuan people to independence. We therefore have a particular responsibility to let the voice of these people, who are suffering massive human rights abuses, at least be heard in the councils of the UN.
	My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the time of the so-called Act of Free Choice when 1,000 pre-designated or selected Papuan representatives made a decision on behalf of the Papuan people. There has subsequently been much dispute whether they made that decision objectively and freely of their own will. Nevertheless, it was endorsed by the United Nations at the time and since then there has been no international doubt that Papua is part of Indonesia.
	My Lords, there is no legal or procedural impediment to raising the question either at the General Assembly or in the Security Council under Article 35 of the charter. Is it the Government's position that genocide should continue while the international community looks on? If so, what has become of the ethical foreign policy?
	My Lords, the noble and learned Lord raises two separate points. First, while we are concerned by continuing human rights abuses in Papua—we have highlighted them in this year's Foreign Office and government human rights report and raised them through our embassy in Jakarta—we nevertheless believe that they are of a relatively small kind and do not in any way constitute the level of gravity that has just been implied. Secondly, because we do not accept that Papua should be independent, we would not consider it appropriate to raise the issue in the Security Council or General Assembly.
	My Lords, does the Minister agree that the so-called Act of Free Choice was nothing of the kind? If that is so, is it not at least worth asking the Indonesians to consider the similar case of Aceh, where there has been a free election for an autonomous government of the territory? Might that not be the best way forward, rather than total independence?

Lord Sheikh: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to return to this important subject, on which I gave my maiden speech in your Lordships' House at about the same time last year. Our stewardship of the environment is one of the most pressing concerns of the present time and we must ensure that we take great care not to make mistakes that will prove damaging and dangerous.
	The global concern about climate change is embodied in the Kyoto Protocol, yet, as a mechanism for achieving emissions reduction, it can only be judged a failure. There has been no real reduction in emissions and it does not adequately deal with the need of societies to adapt to climate change.
	It is the Opposition who have led the national debate on the safe management of our environment. As David Cameron has said, this issue,
	"is not just about ticking a few boxes—it is about changing our political system and changing our lifestyles".
	It has been David Cameron who has led the charge for a Climate Change Bill; the Government have responded and the Bill will be introduced.
	Scientists may argue about the underlying causes of climate change, but it is widely acknowledged that the temperature of the earth is rising and most agree that we should focus our policy debate on what action we can take to address the issues that those changes raise for us. In regard to problems relating to climate change, we have not seen the emergence of a global price for carbon and it is unlikely that one will develop in the next five to 10 years. Even if it were to be established, we are unlikely to see it deliver much more than an incentive towards efficiency gains.
	We must take action to ensure that man-made carbon emissions peak by 2015 and reduce steadily thereafter. Without such action, it is likely that we will be unable to prevent dangerous levels of global warming. I welcome the introduction of a Climate Change Bill and hope to see it crafted into a thoroughly effective piece of legislation. This country must be at the forefront of the global conversion to a decarbonised economy.
	On that basis, it is important that the Bill contains a legal framework to underpin our national contribution to tackling climate change. I welcome the creation of an independent committee on climate change, but I want the Government to consider whether advice from the committee could be provided on five-year carbon budgets and whether the national target should be strengthened as progress occurs. I want an annual report from the Government to Parliament on progress and a statutory target reduction in carbon dioxide emissions monitored on a five-year basis. There should be a new carbon trading scheme for large and medium-sized funds to cut more than 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year by 2020. We should also consider whether we can introduce the concept of carbon trading in other sectors of the economy.
	The suggestion that the Government will include powers for local authorities to introduce financial incentives to promote recycling merits further examination. I would welcome more from the Minister on how the Bill will ensure that the renewable transport fuel obligation will be enhanced. The European solution offers some promise. One of the most advanced examples of harnessing market power to address the problem is the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. It is essential, however, if we are to make this work, that we ensure that it becomes more open, transparent and accountable, issuing permits by auction rather than through the present approach.
	There is much more work to be done. Even if the Climate Change Bill proves to be effective, it will still be only the start of a very long journey and we need to be ready to commit to the task that will present itself during that exercise. The sensible stewardship of the earth is a duty that we need adequately to answer. As an insurance broker, I would like to see some insurance companies considering introducing schemes whereby premium reductions can be granted to companies that manage waste better and take measures to reduce pollution and emissions. The insurance industry would then be taking the environment seriously and would play a positive role in improving the position.
	Finally, as chair of the Conservative Muslim Forum, I shall quote the holy Prophet Mohammed—peace be upon him. He said that the earth is green and beautiful and that God has appointed us his stewards over it. We must therefore be responsible for the safe and sensible management of our planet.